Subject: [Asrg] 3b. LMAP - Another LMAP variant "IMX"

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:51:57 -0500

This just got published by the IETF drafts admin, another LMAP variant:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-laforet-deasey-imxrecords-00.txt

Abstract:

"Unwanted Email ("SPAM") is a constantly growing scourge of the
Internet.  SPAM takes full advantage of the open system that was
created in the spirit of cooperation that represents the original
underpinnings of the Internet.

Understanding that making airtight mail systems without completely
destroying old software, the authors of this proposal considered the
continued operation of these legacy systems while tightening up the
current standards.  This new proposal calls for a new DNS resource
record type and a new standard of operation for organization mail-
exchangers.  Using this new resource record along with other standard
DNS resources provides system operators to minimize exploitable inbound
SPAM pathways into their systems."

Yakov
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"All that is gold does not glitter" (LOTR)
-------

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Philip Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 22:03:52 -0500

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-laforet-deasey-imxrecords-00.txt

OK, I just read it.
My specific thoughts:
1. It does not contain a strong rationale for what it proposes.
2. It does not contain a specific technical specification for what it proposes.
3. It's quite clearly within the purview of this research group (cf. abstract).
4. It's never been previously mentioned in this group.
5. There's nothing to see here. These aren't the droids you're looking for. 
Move along.

Philip Miller

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:26:07 +0000

> Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-laforet-deasey-imxrecords-00.
> txt

It seems rather "derivative"... and it's missing a required section.

--

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:06:36 -0500

> It seems rather "derivative"... and it's missing a required section.

  It's pretty much content-free, and doesn't reference any of the
pre-existing RMX-style proposals.  So they've made it clear that
they're not going to read or reference other peoples proposals, but
they're publishing this one for other people to read.  Nice.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: david nicol <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Jan 2004 20:22:21 -0600

I am mystified as to why that is in and the OMX proposal was not, in
fact the rfc editor did not even write back about it.

Do they like it when you propose new amd unnecessary resource records?

-- 
david nicol
                                                    "Rabbit troop sucks!"

---

From: david nicol <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Jan 2004 20:23:23 -0600

> they're publishing this one for other people to read.  Nice.

It is concise and cute, it does that have that going for it.

-- 
david nicol
                                                    "Rabbit troop sucks!"

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:28:35 -0500

This is an Internet draft which is not checked at all except for having 
required sections. In the words of one IETFer "you can send you laundry 
list as an Internet Draft and it will get published".

It is different from the RFC Editor, Internet drafts are working 
documents and are not expected to be checked. When someone wants one 
published, they take an existing Internet Draft and send it over to the 
RFC Editor.

Yakov

-------
Yakov Shafranovich / asrg <at> shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / research <at> solidmatrix.com
"I ate your Web page. / Forgive me. It was juicy / And tart on my 
tongue." (MIT's 404 Message)
-------

---

From: GertJan Hagenaars <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:44:55 -0500

Apparently, david nicol wrote:
% 
% I am mystified as to why that is in and the OMX proposal was not, in
% fact the rfc editor did not even write back about it.

Maybe that proposal got filtered out by his SPAM filters?

CHeers,
GertJan.

---

From: david nicol <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Jan 2004 20:48:52 -0600

I sent them one and it did not get published.  Maybe I should send it
again.

-- 
david nicol
                                                    "Rabbit troop sucks!"

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:53:58 +0000

> list as an Internet Draft and it will get published".

So where's the security section - or did I miss it?

--

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:49:57 -0500

> So where's the security section - or did I miss it?

Security is not required for Internet Drafts, see:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt

Yakov
-------

---

From: "Jon Kyme" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:49:53 +0000

YS> Security is not required for Internet Drafts, see:
 
Point taken - thank you.

> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt

Yes, I've read that - it requires only the mandatory statement(s), an
abstract, contact info, filename and date. A draft that supplied only these
items would be pretty silly wouldn't it? I can't believe that the community
wants to waste time looking at things like that. However, in these
*guidelines* reference is made to to RFC2223 which does, of course, require
a security section. I don't see why anyone needs to submit a draft
(presumably with the intent benefiting from community review and comment so
that they can work it up for a RFC) which doesn't have at least RFC *form*.
I think most people would expect that an ID is a "draft" for an RFC. I
realise that this is a matter for the RFC editor function (and the IAB) and
not strictly relevant here.

On a more relevant point: Nowadays, everyone has got a "solution for the
spam problem", many of them even get written down as IDs. Some of these are
clearly half-baked. Producing a ID roughly in RFC form is so trivially easy
that I can't see any point of asking us to read things that aren't in that
form.

Of course, our (Eric Williams' rather) requirements ID holds that security
must be considered. I'd say that any proposal that doesn't even mention
security can be "knocked-back" right away.

--